Methods for probability updating, of which Bayesian conditionalization is the most well-known and widely used, are modeling tools that aim to represent the process of modifying an initial epistemic state, typically represented by a prior probability function P, which is adjusted in light of new information. Notably, updating methods and conditional sentences seem to intuitively share a deep connection, as is evident in the case of conditionalization. The present work contributes to this line of research and aims at shedding new light on the relationship between updating methods and conditional connectives. Departing from previous literature that often focused on a specific type of conditional or a particular updating method, our goal is to prove general results concerning the connection between conditionals and their probabilities. This will allow us to characterize the probabilities of certain conditional connectives and to understand what class of updating procedures can be represented using specific conditional connectives. Broadly, we adopt a general perspective that encompasses a large class of conditionals and a wide range of updating methods, enabling us to prove some general results concerning their interrelation.

Uncertainty estimation is pivotal in machine learning, especially for classification tasks, as it improves the robustness and reliability of models. We introduce a novel `Epistemic Wrapping' methodology aimed at improving uncertainty estimation in classification. Our approach uses Bayesian Neural Networks (BNNs) as a baseline and transforms their outputs into belief function posteriors, effectively capturing epistemic uncertainty and offering an efficient and general methodology for uncertainty quantification. Comprehensive experiments employing a Bayesian Neural Network (BNN) baseline and an Interval Neural Network for inference on the MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 datasets demonstrate that our Epistemic Wrapper significantly enhances generalisation and uncertainty quantification.

Neurosymbolic AI focuses on integrating learning and reasoning, in particular, on unifying logical and neural representations. Despite the existence of an alphabet soup of neurosymbolic AI systems, the field is lacking a generally accepted formal definition of what neurosymbolic models and inference really are. We introduce a formal definition for neurosymbolic AI that makes abstraction of its key ingredients. More specifically, we define neurosymbolic inference as the computation of an integral over a product of a logical and a belief function. We show that our neurosymbolic AI definition makes abstraction of key representative neurosymbolic AI systems.

This paper explores belief inference in credal networks using Dempster-Shafer theory. By building on previous work, we propose a novel framework for propagating uncertainty through a subclass of credal networks, namely chains. The proposed approach efficiently yields conservative intervals through belief and plausibility functions, combining computational speed with robust uncertainty representation. Key contributions include formalizing belief-based inference methods and comparing belief-based inference against classical sensitivity analysis. Numerical results highlight the advantages and limitations of applying belief inference within this framework, providing insights into its practical utility for chains and for credal networks in general.

Despite AI's impressive achievements, including recent advances in generative and large language models, there remains a significant gap in the ability of AI systems to handle uncertainty and generalize beyond their training data. AI models consistently fail to make robust enough predictions when facing unfamiliar or adversarial data. Traditional machine learning approaches struggle to address this issue, due to an overemphasis on data fitting, while current uncertainty quantification approaches suffer from serious limitations. This position paper posits a paradigm shift towards epistemic artificial intelligence, emphasizing the need for models to learn from what they know while at the same time acknowledging their ignorance, using the mathematics of second-order uncertainty measures. This approach, which leverages the expressive power of such measures to efficiently manage uncertainty, offers an effective way to improve the resilience and robustness of AI systems, allowing them to better handle unpredictable real-world environments.

Quantifying differences between probability distributions is fundamental to statistics and machine learning, primarily for comparing statistical uncertainty. In contrast, epistemic uncertainty (EU) -- due to incomplete knowledge -- requires richer representations than those offered by classical probability. Imprecise probability (IP) theory offers such models, capturing ambiguity and partial belief. This has driven growing interest in imprecise probabilistic machine learning (IPML), where inference and decision-making rely on broader uncertainty models -- highlighting the need for metrics beyond classical probability. This work introduces the Integral Imprecise Probability Metric (IIPM) framework, a Choquet integral-based generalisation of classical Integral Probability Metric (IPM) to the setting of capacities -- a broad class of IP models encompassing many existing ones, including lower probabilities, probability intervals, belief functions, and more. Theoretically, we establish conditions under which IIPM serves as a valid metric and metrises a form of weak convergence of capacities. Practically, IIPM not only enables comparison across different IP models but also supports the quantification of epistemic uncertainty within a single IP model. In particular, by comparing an IP model with its conjugate, IIPM gives rise to a new class of EU measures -- Maximum Mean Imprecision -- which satisfy key axiomatic properties proposed in the Uncertainty Quantification literature. We validate MMI through selective classification experiments, demonstrating strong empirical performance against established EU measures, and outperforming them when classical methods struggle to scale to a large number of classes. Our work advances both theory and practice in IPML, offering a principled framework for comparing and quantifying epistemic uncertainty under imprecision.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are known to produce very high-quality tests and responses to our queries. But how much can we trust this generated text? In this paper, we study the problem of uncertainty quantification in LLMs. We propose a novel Random-Set Large Language Model (RSLLM) approach which predicts finite random sets (belief functions) over the token space, rather than probability vectors as in classical LLMs. In order to allow so efficiently, we also present a methodology based on hierarchical clustering to extract and use a budget of "focal" subsets of tokens upon which the belief prediction is defined, rather than using all possible collections of tokens, making the method scalable yet effective. RS-LLMs encode the epistemic uncertainty induced in their generation process by the size and diversity of its training set via the size of the credal sets associated with the predicted belief functions. The proposed approach is evaluated on CoQA and OBQA datasets using Llama2-7b, Mistral-7b and Phi-2 models and is shown to outperform the standard model in both datasets in terms of correctness of answer while also showing potential in estimating the second level uncertainty in its predictions and providing the capability to detect when its hallucinating.

We do not always know how to interpret the statements that we hear, the observations that we make, or the evidence that we gather. Traditional frameworks for reasoning about uncertainty and belief revision typically suppose that new information is presented definitively: there is no question about what was learned. The paradigm of Bayesian conditioning exemplifies this assumption: "evidence" takes the simple form of an event E, and belief revision proceeds by updating probabilities accordingly: π π( | E). In order to capture the kind of uncertainty about interpretation we wish to reason about, we change the fundamental representation of events so that the sets they correspond to are themselves variable--the "true meaning" of a statement thus becomes itself an object of uncertainty. This approach follows in the spirit of other recent work [1, 2], expanding on it along two key dimensions.

Time-to-event analysis provides insights into clinical prognosis and treatment recommendations. However, this task is more challenging than standard regression problems due to the presence of censored observations. Additionally, the lack of confidence assessment, model robustness, and prediction calibration raises concerns about the reliability of predictions. To address these challenges, we propose an evidential regression model specifically designed for time-to-event prediction. The proposed model quantifies both epistemic and aleatory uncertainties using Gaussian Random Fuzzy Numbers and belief functions, providing clinicians with uncertainty-aware survival time predictions. The model is trained by minimizing a generalized negative log-likelihood function accounting for data censoring. Experimental evaluations using simulated datasets with different data distributions and censoring conditions, as well as real-world datasets across diverse clinical applications, demonstrate that our model delivers both accurate and reliable performance, outperforming state-of-the-art methods. These results highlight the potential of our approach for enhancing clinical decision-making in survival analysis.

The transferable belief model, as a semantic interpretation of Dempster-Shafer theory, enables agents to perform reasoning and decision making in imprecise and incomplete environments. The model offers distinct semantics for handling unreliable testimonies, allowing for a more reasonable and general process of belief transfer compared to the Bayesian approach. However, because both the belief masses and the structure of focal sets must be considered when updating belief functions-leading to extra computational complexity during reasoning-the transferable belief model has gradually lost favor among researchers in recent developments. In this paper, we implement the transferable belief model on quantum circuits and demonstrate that belief functions offer a more concise and effective alternative to Bayesian approaches within the quantum computing framework. Furthermore, leveraging the unique characteristics of quantum computing, we propose several novel belief transfer approaches. More broadly, this paper introduces a new perspective on basic information representation for quantum AI models, suggesting that belief functions are more suitable than Bayesian approach for handling uncertainty on quantum circuits.